Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wright Vs. Van Patten

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 07, 2008

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

40 entries 4 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Holbrook Vs. Flynn US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1986
  2. Florida Vs. Nixon US Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2004
  3. Johnson Vs. Zerbst US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  4. United States Vs. Cronic US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  5. Wright v. Van
    Search
  6. Patten - 07-212 (2008) Wright v. Van
    Search
  7. Patten - 07-212 (2008) Per Curiam Wright V. Van
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States Randall Wright, Sheriff, Shawano County, Wisconsin V. Joseph
    Search
  9. s assistance was presumptively ineffective owing to his participation in a plea hearing by speaker phone. Van Patten v. Deppisch
    Search
  10. We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin
    Search
  11. Van Patten v. Endicott
    Search
  12. by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. Van
    Search
  13. A50. Applying Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  14. a showing of deficient performance and prejudice to the defendant), but under the standard discussed in United States v. Cronic
    Search
  15. test, which we thus far have applied only in cases involving government-sponsored conduct, see , e.g., Estelle v. Williams
    Search
  16. id., at 829. We reach the same conclusion. II Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  17. S. 668 (1984) ordinarily applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea hearing stage. See Hill v. Lockhart
    Search
  18. he two-part Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  19. to result in such poor performance that an inquiry into its effects would not be worth the time. Cf. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
    Search
  20. It is undisputed that this standard has not been met here. Wright v. Van
    Search
  21. Patten - 07-212 (2008) Stevens, J., Concurring in Judgment Wright V. Van
    Search
  22. s opinion in United States v. Cronic
    Search
  23. See also Van Patten v. Deppisch
    Search
  24. Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  25. through every stage of the proceedings against him. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  26. U. S. 52 , 54 (1961). See also White v. Maryland
    Search
  27. Van Patten v. Deppisch
    Search
  28. Per Curiam Wright V. Van
    Search
  29. of Carey v. Musladin
    Search
  30. See State v. Van
    Search
  31. Estelle v. Williams
    Search
  32. II Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  33. See Hill v. Lockhart
    Search
  34. Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  35. Cf. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
    Search
  36. Stevens, J., Concurring in Judgment Wright V. Van
    Search
  37. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  38. White v. Maryland
    Search
  39. Bell v. Cone
    Search
  40. Hamilton v. Alabama
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial